INTERVIEW

An interview is a type of qualitative research that relies on asking questions in order to

collect data.

Although there are a lot of superficial

similarities between a conversation and an interview, interviews are actually
something more than just a conversation. Interviews involve a set of assumptions
and understandings about the situation which are not normally associated
with a casual conversation

someone agrees to take part in a research interview:

There is consent to take part
Interviewees’ words can be treated as ‘on the record’ and ‘for the record’.
The agenda for the discussion is set by the researcher.

When is it appropriate to use interviews for research?

when they are applied to the exploration of more complex and subtle phenomena.
If the researcher wants to collect information on simple and uncontroversial
facts, then questionnaires might prove to be a more cost-effective
method. But, when the researcher needs to gain insights into things like
people’s opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences, then interviews will
almost certainly provide a more suitable method –

can be used for data on 1. Opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences, Sensitive issues.,
Privileged information.
Types of research interview
Structured interviews
Structured interviews involve tight control over the format of the questions
and answers. In essence, the structured interview is like a questionnaire which
is administered face to face with a respondent. The researcher has a predetermined
list of questions, to which the respondent is invited to offer limitedoption
responses

Structured interviews are often associated with social surveys where

researchers are trying to collect large volumes of data from a wide range of
respondents.

Semi-structured interviews
With semi-structured interviews, the interviewer still has a clear list of issues to
be addressed and questions to be answered. However, with the semi-structured
interview the interviewer is prepared to be flexible in terms of the order in
which the topics are considered, and, perhaps more significantly, to let the
interviewee develop ideas and speak more widely on the issues raised by
the researcher. The answers are open-ended.

Unstructured interviews
Unstructured interviews go further in the extent to which emphasis is placed
on the interviewee’s thoughts. The researcher’s role is to be as un-intrusive as
possible – to start the ball rolling by introducing a theme or topic and then
letting the interviewee develop their ideas and pursue their train of thought.

One-to-one interviews
The most common form of semi-structured or unstructured interview is the
one-to-one variety which involves a meeting between one researcher and one
informant. One reason for its popularity is that it is relatively easy to arrange.

Group interviews
By interviewing more than one person at a time the researcher is able to dramatically increase the
number and range of participants involved in the research.
A disadvantage of the one-to-one interview is that it limits the number of
views and opinions available to the researcher. Listening to one person at a
time effectively restricts the number of voices that can be heard and the range
of views that can be included within a research project. Group interviews,
however, provide a practical solution to this. By interviewing more than one
person at a time the researcher is able to dramatically increase the number and
range of participants involved in the research.

Increasing the numbers involved can have benefits in terms of the representativeness
of the data.
FOCUS GROUPS
A focus group is best defined as a small group of carefully selected participants who
contribute to open discussions for research.

They consist of small

groups of people who are brought together by a ‘moderator’ (the researcher) to
explore attitudes and perceptions, feelings and ideas about a specific topic. The
three distinctive and vital points about focus groups are that:

 there is a focus to the session

 particular emphasis is placed on the interaction within the group as a means
 for eliciting information;
• the moderator’s role is to facilitate the group interaction.

The focus
The discussion in a focus group is triggered by a ‘stimulus’. The stimulus might
be some shared experience that the participants bring to the session from their
personal background. They might all share an occupation, all suffer a similar
illness or, perhaps, all have watched a particular TV series. They will have this
much at least in common. Alternatively, the stimulus can be something introduced
by the moderator at the beginning of a session

Group interaction
During a focus group session participants are encouraged to discuss the topic
among themselves. This interaction helps the researcher to understand the
reasoning behind the views and opinions that are expressed by group members.
It provides the researcher with a method of investigating the participants’
reasoning and a means for exploring underlying factors that might explain
why people hold the opinions and feelings they do.

The role of the moderator

The moderator is responsible for organizing the focus group session; for selecting
the members and arranging the venue at a time and place when all group
members can attend. They will take responsibility for:
• creating a comfortable atmosphere for the discussion;
• introducing the stimulus
• keeping the discussion on track, focused around the topic;
• encouraging participation from all members;
• ensuring there is no abuse or intimidation.
The moderator will also keep field notes relating to the discussion and, for
the purposes of research, will make an audio recording of the talk.
The size of focus groups
advantages in terms of:
• collecting data from a wider cross-section of people (representativeness of
the data);
• collecting data from more people from each session (convenience and
economy).

Disadvantages
Larger numbers are more difficult to schedule.
Larger groups can become unwieldy and hard to control.
Larger groups cost more.
Larger groups can inhibit contributions from less confident people
Discussions within larger groups are more difficult to record.
How long should a focus group last?
Typically, focus groups last about 1½ to 2 hours. They tend to last longer than
one-to-one interviews mainly because there are more people involved and
more opinions to be aired.

The selection of group members

There are practical factors affecting the selection of people to join a focus
group.
potential recruits need to be available
They also need to be people who the researcher knows something about
They are selected on the basis of who they are and how this fits in with the topic of the research.

Other researchers tend to concentrate on the matter of similarity when it

comes to the selection of participants. They place particular value on the selection
of participants who all share some relevant attribute for the research.
The interviewer effect
Personal identity
Research on interviewing has demonstrated fairly conclusively that people
respond differently depending on how they perceive the person asking the
questions.

The impact of the researcher’s personal identity, of course, will depend on

who is being interviewed. It is not, strictly speaking, the identity in its own
right that affects the data, but what the researcher’s identity means as far as the
person being interviewed is concerned.

Self-presentation
Conventional advice to researchers has been geared to minimizing the impact
of researchers on the outcome of the research by having them adopt a passive
and neutral stance. The idea is that the researcher:
• presents himself or herself in a light which is designed not to antagonize or
upset the interviewee (conventional clothes, courtesy, etc.);
• remains neutral and non-committal on the statements made during the
interview by the interviewee.

Personal involvement
One line of reasoning argues that a cold and calculating style of interviewing
reinforces a gulf between the researcher and the informant, and does little
to help or empower the informant. Now, if the aims of the research are
specifically to help or empower the people being researched, rather than dispassionately
learn from them, then the approach of the interviewer will need
to alter accordingly.

Internet interviews and online focus groups

The Internet interview, at its simplest, consists of an exchange of email correspondence.

Alternatively, it can be conducted through ‘bulletin boards’,
‘chat rooms’ or messaging services such as offered by Yahoo! or MSN Messenger.

Online focus groups

Online focus groups can be conducted using chat rooms or messaging services
(or by using specialist conferencing software, although this can be expensive
and technically complex). The use of chat rooms or messaging services allows
the focus groups to be conducted ‘remotely’ rather than in the conventional
face-to-face manner

Planning and preparation for face-to-face interviews

The topics for discussion
researchers approach an interview with some
agenda and with some game-plan in mind. In such cases it would be tempting
fate to proceed to a research interview without having devoted considerable
time to thinking through the key points that warrant attention. This does
not necessarily mean that the researcher needs to have a rigid framework.

Choice of informants
In principle, there is nothing to stop researchers from selecting informants on
the basis of random sampling. In practice, though, this is unlikely to happen.
Interviews are generally conducted with lower numbers than would be the
case with questionnaire surveys, and this means that the selection of people to
interview is more likely to be based on non-probability sampling. People tend
to be chosen deliberately because they have some special contribution to
make.

Authorization
In many, if not most, research situations it will be necessary to get approval
from relevant ‘authorities’.

Arranging the venue

In the case of face-to-face interviews, securing an agreement to be interviewed
is often easier if the prospective interviewee is contacted in advance. This also
allows both parties to arrange a mutually convenient time for the interview.
INTERVIEW SKILLS
The good interviewer needs to be attentive
The good interviewer is sensitive to the feelings of the informant
The good interviewer is able to tolerate silences during the talk
The good interviewer is adept at using prompts
The good interviewer is adept at using probes
The good interviewer is adept at using checks.(cross check with the subject to tell him daa sta
matlab dy)
With focus groups, the good researcher manages to let everyone have a say
The good interviewer is non-judgemental

Conducting the interview

Introduction and formalities
At the beginning there should be the opportunity to say ‘Hello’, to do some
introductions,
Starting the interview
The first question takes on a particular significance for the interview. It
should offer the interviewee the chance to settle down and relax. For this
reason it is normally good practice to kick off with an ‘easy’ question:
Monitoring progress
During the interview, the researcher should keep a discreet eye on the time.
The good researcher needs to wind things up within the allotted time

Finishing the interview

It is better for the interview to come to a close in some orderly fashion guided
by the interviewer. Having kept an eye on the time, and having ensured that
most of the required areas for discussion have been covered,

Recording the interview

Field notes
Under certain circumstances researchers will need to rely on field notes written
soon after the interview or actually during the interview

Field notes need to be made during the interview itself or, if this is not
feasible, as soon afterwards as possible. They need to be made while
events are fresh in the mind of the interviewer.

Audio recording
In practice, most research interviewers rely on audio recordings backed up by
written field notes. Initially, interviewees can feel rather inhibited by the process
of recording but most participants become more relaxed after a short while.

Equipment (che pa Wakht tayar we, nu drust we)

Representing the data: the use of interview extracts in
research reports
It is very unlikely, however,
that an extract from an interview transcript can be presented as proof of a
point. There are two reasons for this.
The significance of extracts from transcripts is always limited by the fact that they
are, to some extent, presented out of context

The process of selecting extracts involves a level of judgement and discretion on the
part of the researcher.

The validity of interview data: how do you know the

informant is telling the truth?

Ultimately, there is no absolute way

of verifying what someone tells you about their thoughts and feelings.
Researchers are not ‘mind readers’. But there are still some practical checks
researchers can make to gauge the credibility of what they have been told.

Check the data with other sources

Checking the transcript with the informant

Check the plausibility of the data

Look for themes in the transcript(s)
Advantages of interviews

Depth of information
Equipment. Interviews require only simple equipment
Flexibility.
High response rate.
Validity.
Direct contact at the point of the interview means that data can be
checked for accuracy and relevance as they are collected
Therapeutic. Interviews can be a rewarding experience for the informant.

Disadvantages of interviews
Time-consuming.
Data analysis. The interview method tends to produce non-standard responses.
Semi-structured and unstructured interviews produce data that are not pre-coded and have a
relatively open format.
• Reliability. The impact of the interviewer and of the context means that consistency and
objectivity are hard to achieve.
Interviewer effect. The data from interviews are based on what people say rather than what they
do. The two may not tally.
Inhibitions. In the case of face-to-face interviews, the audio recorder (or video recorder) can
inhibit the informant.

Invasion of privacy.
Resources. With face-to-face interviews the costs of interviewer’s time and
travel can be relatively high.
OBSERVATION

Observation offers the social researcher a distinct way of collecting data. It

does not rely on what people say they do, or what they say they think. It is
more direct than that. Instead, it draws on the direct evidence of the eye to
witness events first hand. It is based on the premise that, for certain purposes,
it is best to observe what actually happens.
There are essentially two kinds of observation research used in the social
sciences. The first of these is systematic observation. Systematic observation has
its origins in social psychology – in particular the study of interaction in settings
such as school classrooms. It is normally linked with the production of quantitative data
and the use of statistical analysis.
The second is participant observation. This is
mainly associated with sociology and anthropology, and is used by researchers
to infiltrate situations, sometimes as an undercover operation, to understand
the culture and processes of the groups being investigated. It usually produces
qualitative data.

Some vital characteristics of both types:

Direct observation. The obvious connection is that they both rely on direct
observation. In this respect they stand together, in contrast to methods such
as questionnaires and interviews, which base their data on what informants
tell the researcher.

Fieldwork. The second common factor is their dedication to collecting

data in real life situations – out there in the field. In their distinct ways, they
both involve fieldwork.

Natural settings. Fieldwork observation – distinct from laboratory observations

– occurs in situations which would have occurred whether or not
the research had taken place.

The issue of perception. Systematic observation and participant observation

both recognize that the process of observing is far from straightforward.
Both are acutely sensitive to the possibility that researchers’ perceptions of
situations might be influenced by personal factors

Perception and observation

Two researchers looking at the same event ought to have recorded precisely
the same things. Yet in practice this might not be the case. It is
possible that the two researchers will produce different records of the thing
they jointly witnessed.

there are three things which are particularly important,\.

Selective recall:
Selective perception
Accentuated perception. (pa hgha wakht k sa jazbat de zamong, ya generally zamong sa khas
sezuna ta emetions der badal we)
there is a tendency to highlight some information and reject some other, depending on:
• Familiarity.
Past experiences.
Current state.

Systematic observation and observation schedules

Different observers will produce different data.

It is precisely this problem which is addressed by systematic observation and its use of an
observation schedule. The whole purpose of the schedule is to minimize, possibly eliminate, the
variations that will arise from data based on individual perceptions of events and situations. Its
aim is to provide a framework for observation which all observers will use, and which will
enable them to:
• be alert to the same activities and be looking out for the same things;
• record data systematically and thoroughly;
• produce data which are consistent between observers, with two or more researchers who
witness the same event recording the same data.

To achieve these three aims, observation schedules contain a list of items that operate something
like a checklist. The researcher who uses an observation schedule will monitor the items
contained in the checklist and make a record of them as they occur. All observers will have their
attention directed to the same things.
Creating an observation schedule
Literature review
Initially, the possible features of the situation which might be observed using a
schedule can be identified on the basis of a literature review. Such a literature
review will present certain things as worthy of inclusion, and should allow the
researcher to prioritize those aspects of the situation to be observed.

Types of events and behaviour to be recorded

Observers can measure what happens in a variety of ways. The choice will
depend on the events themselves and, of course, the purpose to which the
results will be put. Observations can be based on:

Frequency of events
Events at a given point in time.
Duration of events
Sample of people

Suitability for observation

When the items for inclusion in the schedule are being selected there are seven
conditions that need to be met. The things to be observed need to be:
Overt
Obvious
Context independent
Relevant
Complete
Precise
Easy to record
Sampling and observation
When deciding what thing is to be observed, the researcher also needs to
make a strategic decision concerning the kind of sampling to be used.
Researchers using systematic observation generally organize their research
around set time-blocks of observation in the field. For example, these might
be one-hour chunks of time in situ.

Recording contextual factors

Precisely because the use of an observation schedule has the tendency to
decontextualize the things it records, more advanced practice in this area has
made a point of insisting that researchers collect information about relevant
background matters whenever they use a schedule

Retaining the naturalness of the setting

With systematic observation, the issue of retaining the naturalness of the setting
hinges on the prospect of the researcher fading into the background and
becoming, to all intents and purposes, invisible.
Advantages of systematic observation
Direct data collection
Systematic and rigorous.
Efficient.
Pre-coded data. It produces quantitative data which are pre-coded and ready
for analysis.
• Reliability. When properly established, it should achieve high levels of interobserver
reliability in the sense that two or more observers using a schedule
should record very similar data.

Disadvantages of systematic observation

Behaviour, not intentions
Oversimplifies. It assumes that overt behaviours can be measured in terms of
categories that are fairly straightforward and unproblematic.
Contextual information. Observation schedules, by themselves, tend to miss
contextual information which has a bearing on the behaviours recorded.
Naturalness of the setting. Despite the confidence arising from experience,
there remains a question mark about the observer’s ability to fade into the
background.
Participant observation
Participant observation revolves around the three possibilities:
• Total participation, where the researcher’s role is kept secret.
 Participation in the normal setting, where the researcher’s role may be known
to certain ‘gatekeepers’, but may be hidden from most of those in the setting.
 Participation as observer, where the researcher’s identity as a researcher is
openly recognized

What to observe, what to record

Starting fieldwork
The researcher should not enter the field with pre-established hypotheses to be
tested. The researcher is there to learn about the situation. The longer the
researcher is able to spend ‘on site’ the better, because the longer he or she is
part of the action the more can be learnt about the situation. Good participant
observation demands that the researcher devotes considerable time to the fieldwork.

Making field notes

Ethics
Self, identity and participant observation
Equipment for research: the ‘self’
One of the attractions of participant observation is that it hinges on the
researcher’s ‘self’, and does not call on much by the way of technical back-up
in the form of gadgets or software. Nor does it tend to produce data that call for
statistical analysis. The key instrument of participant observation methods is the
researcher as a person.

Access to settings
Access is not necessarily a matter of getting approval from relevant authorities
or getting a ‘gatekeeper’ to help open doors to the necessary contacts and
settings. As well as these, when engaging in the total version of participant
observation there is a special, peculiar issue affecting access. If the researcher
is to adopt a role in the setting then he or she needs to have the necessary
credentials – both personal and qualifications.

ADVANTAGES:
1. Basic Equipment
2. Non-Interference
3. Insights
4. Ecological Validity (The data produced by participant observation has the potential to be
particularly context sensitive and ecologically valid.)
1. Holistic
2. Subjects' Points of View

DISADVANTAGES:
1. Access There are limited options open to the researcher about which roles to adopt or
settings to participate in.
2. Commitment
3. Danger
4. Reliability
Dependence on the ‘self’ of the researcher and on the use of field notes as data leads to a
lack of verifiable data.
5. Representativeness of the Data
6. Deception (ethical issues)

Kinds of documentary data

Government publications and official statistics
government publications and official statistics would seem to
be an attractive proposition for the social researcher. They would appear to
provide a documentary source of information that is:
Authoritative
Objective
Factual

Newspapers and magazines

The ‘press’ provides a potentially valuable source of information for research
purposes. One reason for this is that newspapers and magazines can supply
good, up-to-date information.

Records of meetings

Letters and memos

Diaries

Website pages and the Internet

The validity of documentary sources

For the purposes of research, documentary sources should never be accepted
at face value. Their validity is something that needs to be established rather
than being taken for granted.
4 basic criteria to evaluate:
Authenticity
Is it the genuine article? Is it the real thing?
Credibility
Is it accurate? Is it free from bias and errors?
Representativeness
Is the document typical of its type? Does it represent a typical instance of
the thing it portrays?
Meaning
Is the meaning of the words clear and unambiguous? Are there hidden
meanings?
Content analysis
Content analysis is a method which helps the researcher to analyse the content
of documents. Basically, it is a method that can be used with any ‘text’,
whether it be in the form of writing, sounds or pictures, as a way of quantifying
the contents of that text. Political scientists might use it to study the
transcripts of speeches, educationists to study the content of children’s books,
and historians to study statesmen’s correspondence

Content analysis generally follows a logical and relatively straightforward procedure.

Choose an appropriate sample of texts or images

Break the text down into smaller component units.
Develop relevant categories for analysing the data
Code the units in line with the categories
Count the frequency with which these units occur
Analyse the text in terms of the frequency of the units

Content analysis has the potential to disclose many ‘hidden’ aspects of

what is being communicated through the written text.
The use of ‘created’ images
The researcher can generate images specifically for the purposes of the investigation
– so-called created images. The visual images, in this sense, provide
primary source data. These images can be valuable as a means of recording
things. Researchers can make records of events, people, cultures and so on by
photographing, filming or drawing them. Such visual records provide an
alternative to tape recordings (sound), an alternative to the use of written
documents such as field notes, diaries or minutes (text) and an alternative to
the use of quantitative data such as figures from questionnaires or statistics
based on systematic observation (numbers).

The use of ‘found’ images

The social researcher can make use of images that already exist – so-called
found images. These are images that have been produced by other people for
reasons not directly connected with the researcher’s investigation.
The kind of images used depends largely on the subject discipline of the
researcher. Media studies and marketing often use advertisements and newspaper
photographs. Anthropologists, historians and sociologists will use images
of groups and cultural events portrayed using film, photographs, paintings,
graffiti or artefacts. Such items contain a visual record that can be used to
provide factual information about groups or events, or the images can be
interpreted to provide some better understanding of the ideas and lifestyles
that generated the images.
Advantages of documentary research
• Access to data.
Vast amounts of information are held in documents. Depending
on the nature of the documents, most researchers will find access to the
sources relatively easy and inexpensive.
• Cost-effective.
Documentary research provides a cost-effective method of
getting data, particularly large-scale data such as those provided by official
statistics.
• Permanence of data.
Documents generally provide a source of data which
is permanent and available in a form that can be checked by others.
The data are open to public scrutiny.

Disadvantages of documentary research

• Credibility of the source.
The researcher needs to be discerning about the information they use. Researchers need to
evaluate the authority of the source and the procedures used to produce the original data in
order to gauge the credibility of the documents. This is not always easy. Internet documents,
in particular, need special scrutiny. Information found on the Internet can be up-to-date and
good quality stuff. However, just as easily, it can be out-of-date, poor quality material
because there is little control over what is placed on the Internet. From the academic
researcher’s perspective,
the worry is that ‘the Internet is characterized by uncontrolled and unmonitored
publishing with little peer review’ (Cline and Haynes, 2001: 679).
• Secondary data.
When researchers use documents as a source of data, they generally rely on something which
has been produced for other purposes and not for the specific aims of the investigation.
• Social constructions.
Documents can owe more to the interpretations of those who produce them than to an
objective picture of reality.